Lord Trayner —The question here put to us has already been decided in the Court of Appeal in England, the learned Judges having there determined that a ladder is
Page: 6 ↓
I am not disposed to send this case back to the Sheriff on the statement now made at the bar, for the first time, that the deceased was using something more than a ladder at the time when he received his injuries. That statement was not made to the Sheriff, and the inquiry which it would have involved has consequently not been made. I think this case should be determined on the facts as there stated.
Lord Moncreiff — I agree with the majority of your Lordships that we ought to answer the question now, and not send the case back to the Sheriff for amendment on the lines indicated.
The question put to us is raised on facts which the parties asked to have stated, and I do not think that we should be justified (even if we had the power, which I think we have not) in remitting the case to get other facts stated, not to enable us the better to decide the question put, but in order to raise another question of law which has not been put to us.
I am not sure that it is necessary to decide that under no circumstances should a ladder be held to be a scaffolding in terms of the Act. I can conceive circumstances in which it might be possible so to hold. But in the present case, in the circumstances stated, I have no doubt that the ladder used by the appellant at the time of the accident was not a scaffolding within the meaning of the Act.
The Court answered the question in the negative.
Counsel for the Appellant— Shaw,Q.C.— Morton. Agents — Robertson, Dods, & Rhind, W.S.
Counsel for the Respondents — Watt. Agents— Cuthbert & Marchbank, S.S.C.